@Dan Crowther:
I have been disappointed ever since I heard about the ban on Palestinian commentators whose narrative goes beyond what the gatekeepers (the good Jews) would like along with others like Gilad Atzmon and Jeffrey Blankfort. Or maybe only "the Jews" have the right to comment on the Jewish hold on the media, finance etc? Zionist apologists can talk endlessly on this forum about how "Liberal Zionists" (sic, a contradiction in terms) need to do damage control because killing too many goyim is bad for Jews but the goyim here can't be let lose.

(Edited to un-linkify the email addresses)
I sent this email to chancellor AT illinois edu and pmischoAT illinois edu:

I have read a report that that Steven Salaita's appointment at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has been cancelled because of his criticism of Israel's murderous campaign against the stateless Palestinians living in Gaza. Can you confirm or deny this report? If this is true I am surprised that the Israeli lobby still exercises such power in the academia. In this era news cannot be suppressed and the facts are available to anyone with access to internet; several Israeli lawmakers are now openly calling for genocide against Palestinians (Israeli Rabbi genocide, Calls for genocide enter Israeli mainstream, Yochanan Gordon: when is genocide permitted) and saying that the current campaign of murder of civilians is not enough. Genocide is not a word to be thrown around lightly so I will add a link pointing to the analysis done by the international law expert Prof. Francis Boyle of UIUC: Francis Boyle Israel genocide.

The latest Israeli campaign of terror has killed more than 1,900 people, a vast majority of them civilians. Israel has killed more civilians than Hamas militants in this round of atrocities. More than 10,000 Palestinians have been injured, thousands of civilian homes bombed and at least 250,000 Palestinians have been asked to flee their homes because Israel has declared the location of their home as a war zone.

The state of Israel was born out of terrorism (King David Hotel bombing, Irgun Lehi Stern terrorists), ethnic cleansing of 750,000 native Palestinians by Jewish settlers and it is propped up by military occupation which is still supported by $3 billion dollars of American taxpayer money per year. Israel does not allow the native Palestinians to return to their homes but any person of Jewish faith (or any revert to Judaism) is rewarded by Israeli citizenship if they choose to immigrate to Israel. Non-Jewish native people living within the state of Israel (occupied in 1948) as well as the territories occupied in 1967 are second class citizens and have fewer rights than any Jewish settler who decides to immigrate there. Palestinian homes in the Occupied West Bank are routinely demolished to make room for Jewish settlers. This apartheid has been in place since 1948 and the condition of the Palestinians in the recent decades has been described by the anti-apartheid activist Archbishop Desmond Tutu as "worse than apartheid". If apartheid was wrong in South Africa, it is wrong in Palestine-Israel.

The apartheid regime of South Africa was brought down in part by the social, economic and diplomatic boycott of South Africa. UIUC should be on the right side of history by boycotting apartheid instead of silencing the criticism of apartheid and terror.

Steven Salaita– unremitting in criticism of Zionism and Gaza slaughter– loses a job at University of Illinoislink to mondoweiss.net

AbuAdam,
I think Phil's wife was referring to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 which proposed to give a generous 45% to the Native population (Muslims, Christians etc) and a measly 55% to the Jewish population (which was about 34% of the total population at that time).

Humanitarian intervention can only be extremely rare, for what should be obvious reasons. Millions of Russians and Chinese people were killed by Stalin and Mao–orders of magnitude greater than Libyans killed by Quaddafi, or Muslims killed by the Serbs–but it would not have even occurred to anyone that there was an inconsistency or “hypocrisy” because we didn’t go to war against Russia and China.

So if the criteria is that if the perpetrators are weak enough they must be attacked. Why was there no call for intervention in, say, Rwanda then? Because they didn't have enough oil? Now the more African countries have found oil in their backyard, more "liberation" is needed and the white man must stand up to save them Africans, again!

Does deliberate bombing of TV stations qualify for the "humanitarian" tag because the stations constitute "ministry of lies" according to those who want to bomb them? Would you apply the same rules to FoxCNNMSNBC tv stations?
Nato defends TV bombinglink to news.bbc.co.uk

American,
You hit it right on the nail regarding the hypocrisy of liberal hawks when it comes to Israeli massacres (let's not call the bombing by a modern military of a civilian population with zero tanks, zero airplanes a "war") but I don't agree with you on Libya (that Obama handled it in the best way possible).

Those same countries that support Bahraini apartheid, Saudi, Yemeni, Jordanian dictators and Egyptian military dictators, how can they be justified in their bombing of Libya? The lies against Gaddafi have been exposed (viagara, black mercenaries). Why not "liberate" Egypt, Saudia et al from their dictatorships? Ooops, we are the ones supporting those dictatorships. In fact, our liberal VP Joe Biden said he knows Hosni Mubarak very well and he isn't really a dictator and shouldn't step down. Those golden words were said while Mubarak's goons were continuing to torture civilians and sniping at the civilian protesters from rooftops.

Jerome is sad that the 1 million Iraqis were killed for bad reasons, he's glad that thousands of Libyans have been (are being) killed for good reasons. Those Iraqi, Libyan and Afghan towns had to be destroyed in order to save them. The only thing that concerns Jerome Slater is whether the reason for destruction was good or bad.

Were the 3000 innocent Americans killed on a certain September day killed for a good reason or a bad reason? Who judges whether it was a good reason or a bad reason?

Who gives Jerome the right to say that it's a good reason to murder a couple of thousand folks in a desert but not in a high-rise building?

But to exchange insults with the Moosers et al of this world is a total waste of time and energy
At least he's not killing you, he is only insulting you for being a sympathizer of rape and murder. Shouldn't you be grateful that you are not a Libyan or Iraqi or Afghan whose family had just been killed by a foreign army and that you didn't have to read some liberal hypocrite justifying the murder and pillage?

Do you have an ounce of honesty and integrity in you that you justify the bombing of Libya by the dictatorships of countries like Qatar and a host of countries that support the brutal murder of unarmed protesters in all the dictatorships from Egypt to Bahrain and Saudi Arabia to Yemen? I'm sure there were Nazi Germans who justified what their leaders were doing. How do you think you are any different from them? Is napalm more humane than gas chambers or what?

You're welcome! I was surprised to see "lack of perspective that is astounding" attributed to you, I had to re-check the name and re-read your post then I thought I should add an explanation, looks like you and I both posted the response at 8:33 pm EST :)

You comment “it sounds like Iran initiated the tension” shows a lack of perspective that is astounding.Iran has been responding in self defense.

Kathleen,
I think you misread Annie's comment, to me it looks like she's saying that the media intentionally avoided mentioning the news of US military exercise and tried to paint Iran as the party that increased the tensions first.

Here's her comment (emphasis mine)you know what i notice, while the msm is no slack wrt reporting the 10-day Iranian naval exercise, by not mentioning the leak of the report on the 21st (4 days before those straight of hormuz exercises started) it sounds like iran initiated the tension.

Richard Witty said:
I was a racist Zionist apologist before, and I am a racist Zionist apologist today. I could not provide a moral justification for the war crimes, mass-murders and ethnic cleansing of settlers previously, but now I am trying to use a different set of words. I don't know what I mean to say but I am trying to jump through all kinds of hoops to avoid condemning the 63 years of injustice my people have inflicted upon an innocent people.

Showing comments 12 - 1Page: 1

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.

Sign up for Mondoweiss List

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.